Is this the right place to discuss the rumors that BMW allegedly cancelled the E92 CSL??

Best regards, south

BMW always remain tight-lipped about their new models, and the news seems to change from one month to the next. Given how open BMW were about their being a CSL model at the launch of the M3, I doubt they would cancel it. Delay? Probably. Renamed to something like Tii or EVO? Maybe. We'll see.

I suspect they will want to downplay expectations of a CSL if it is anything more than 6 months away, otherwise some people will delay buying the M3. So, I suspect BMW would be quite happy with the rumour of there being no CSL E92, and then surprise everyone by launching it when we least expect them to.

BMW always remain tight-lipped about their new models, and the news seems to change from one month to the next. Given how open BMW were about their being a CSL model at the launch of the M3, I doubt they would cancel it. Delay? Probably. Renamed to something like Tii or EVO? Maybe. We'll see.

Is it possible that BMW can't get the new car to out perform the old car on the track and because of this they may rename it to something like you are saying, so it's a more extreme performance wise over the normal M3, just not that much better on the track. Highly unlikely but possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steved

I suspect they will want to downplay expectations of a CSL if it is anything more than 6 months away, otherwise some people will delay buying the M3. So, I suspect BMW would be quite happy with the rumour of there being no CSL E92, and then surprise everyone by launching it when we least expect them to.

Unless BMW are sure that in the hands of SportAuto the new CSL will out perform the old one I doubt we will see it any time soon.

Is it possible that BMW can't get the new car to out perform the old car on the track

Are you serious? The CSL is a special car but it is not magic and it is not that heavily modified comapred to the base car. The E92 M3 is faster than the CSL in the straights and the suspension and other parts of the car are totally stock/base/mass production. As a chassis the E9X is far better than the E46 hence the 335i with less power being about as fast as the E46 M3 on the track. Once the E92 M3 is lightened up, powered up, brake, wheel and tired up, it will have NO problem besting the CSLs lap time. Pretty simple.

If the E92 is faster on the straights than the CSL, that it [CSL] is significantly faster on the Nurburgring says it must be something very special compared to the car BMW sell now. That means the CSL ethos works extremely well and as a halo car, it's what the M3 needs. If there's no CSL model, then BMW would be mental. Why not sell cars to those who'd not buy an E92 M? I know of one who's driven it and switched his deposit.

Are you serious? The CSL is a special car but it is not magic and it is not that heavily modified comapred to the base car. The E92 M3 is faster than the CSL in the straights and the suspension and other parts of the car are totally stock/base/mass production. As a chassis the E9X is far better than the E46 hence the 335i with less power being about as fast as the E46 M3 on the track. Once the E92 M3 is lightened up, powered up, brake, wheel and tired up, it will have NO problem besting the CSLs lap time. Pretty simple.

It was at best only an opinion swamp, not biggie.

But lets look at the fact to see how sure you are about the new CSL easily beating the old one. To start with the E46 M3's ring time of 8:22 was done with very inferior tyres then is available today, I remember reading somewhere that later on with more modern tyres (which still wouldn't have been the equivalent to the PS2s which the new M3 used in it's run) the E46 M3 did improve this to 8:14, that's still 9 seconds slower but then again it is down on PTW by 29hp (depending on who provides the quote). Now many people still regard the old CSL Michelin Cup tyres better for dry grip than the new ones so it will come down to chassis to find the improvement plus it's extra power.

So what is a realistic power output for the new CSL? I reckon unless the capacity increases 450hp (based on the last model's 110hp/litre that would only be an output of 440hp), would you agree with that or are you of the opinion that more might be achieved. Secondly the weight, this time round the roof is already CF, the front wings are plastic and the bonnet is alloy, so I can believe we will see a similar improvement that the old model had over the normal M3 unless it's price is to go sky high and mountains of CF is used. So I reckon a weight drop of 80Kgs is more realistic.

So the question is, can an improvement of 30hp and 80kgs less weight with what ever else BMW provide it's chassis really improve it's time by 14 seconds in the hands of the SportAuto test driver?

P.S.

I do reckon the car is capable of a better time than the old car but if the GTR's two times are anything to go by (7:38-factory vs 7:50-SportAuto) I would have thought BMW would want to make doubly sure of it before releasing it to the press and public alike.

realisticly speaking, if they do come out with the new CSL...i think we all know that there will be a hefty price increase. truthfully i dont believe that whatever the price difference will be, it sure as heck is not worth the extra 40hp (tops)

I'm no expert on anything, least of all BMW policy, but it would strike me that this is the E9X range is the most suitable yet for CSL-treatment.

It has been commented so many times, even in the warmest reviews, that the new M3 is "softer" than the E46 - we can pretty much take this for granted now. The gap in the range for a CSL is simply bigger than it used to be. Many reviewers have suggested some people would be better waiting for a new CSL.

The fact that nothing in the new range can hold a candle to the old CSL is also something that surely ought not to be allowed to continue for too long.

That said, I'm wondering whether it might take more work to "undo" the additional refinement in the E92 M3. I also think a critical requirement of the new version would be for it to improve measurably on the performance of the old CSL, which would be no mean feat.

444hp-- If they could do 112.5hp/liter (360hp/3.2) with the old one then I'm sure they can achieve this with the new V8 given the improvements in technology and the fact that the V10's in the M5 and M6 can easily be chipped for about 550hp (110hp/liter with a slightly older and less sophisticated engine w/ the exception of the dry sump system). And I'm sure some lighter internals and a higher red line wouldn't hurt performance. Lets remember that there were rumors early on that the e92 M3's engine had its red line lowered from an original 9k rpm.

Weight reduction of about 80-100kg--- lightweight seats, carbon fiber hood/boot, carbon fiber brakes (its a stretch... but i can dream), lightweight rims, and possibly a plastic rear windshield (like the ones used in the GT3 RS). In addition a lighter exhaust system.

But lets look at the fact to see how sure you are about the new CSL easily beating the old one. To start with the E46 M3's ring time of 8:22 was done with very inferior tyres then is available today, I remember reading somewhere that later on with more modern tyres (which still wouldn't have been the equivalent to the PS2s which the new M3 used in it's run) the E46 M3 did improve this to 8:14, that's still 9 seconds slower but then again it is down on PTW by 29hp (depending on who provides the quote). Now many people still regard the old CSL Michelin Cup tyres better for dry grip than the new ones so it will come down to chassis to find the improvement plus it's extra power.

So what is a realistic power output for the new CSL? I reckon unless the capacity increases 450hp (based on the last model's 110hp/litre that would only be an output of 440hp), would you agree with that or are you of the opinion that more might be achieved. Secondly the weight, this time round the roof is already CF, the front wings are plastic and the bonnet is alloy, so I can believe we will see a similar improvement that the old model had over the normal M3 unless it's price is to go sky high and mountains of CF is used. So I reckon a weight drop of 80Kgs is more realistic.

So the question is, can an improvement of 30hp and 80kgs less weight with what ever else BMW provide it's chassis really improve it's time by 14 seconds in the hands of the SportAuto test driver?

P.S.

I do reckon the car is capable of a better time than the old car but if the GTR's two times are anything to go by (7:38-factory vs 7:50-SportAuto) I would have thought BMW would want to make doubly sure of it before releasing it to the press and public alike.

I'm sure.

Let's get the facts straight.

1. The E46 M3 N'ring laptime was achieved with one of the two tires that the car came with stock either the Michelin Pilot Sport or a Continental ContiSport Contact. Both of which are top of the line ultra high performance tires. I suspect it was run with the MPS. Michelin has only slightly revised it's best tire now the PS2 instead of the PS. The only stickier Michelin road tires are PSC and PSC+.

2. The 8:05 N'Ring time of the E92 M3 was using MPSC+ not PS2.

3. The 7:50 SA GT-R time is preliminary. It will very likely post better than that for its official number.

A low figure for the CSLs power is probably 440, could be 450-460. I have posted my reasoning behind this on other threads. I do agree that weight savings is going to be more difficult in the E92 than the E46. Despite being fairly heavy the E92 M3 has a lot of weight savings trickery like that you mentioned as well as tons of hollow shafting like axles, sways and even engine components.

If they lose only 200 lb (E46 CSL lost 361 over base model) and brought the hp to only 440 the power to weight (weight to power...) would be 8.3 lb/hp compared to the CSL at 8.5. And yes the CSL is likely to still get the absolutely stickiest Michelin street tire the PSC. Lastly, the CSL will likely be available with M-DCT only. Remembering our little regression analysis puts this hypothetical CSL 5 seconds ahead of the existing CSL.

Just like BMW would not release a new M3 only a touch faster around the Ring than the old M3, neither would they do the same for the CSL, period.

Let's compare the potential 450 HP, 3350 lb CSL to the GTR, which weighs >3800 lbs. A 3350 lb CSL with 450 HP would have a power-to-weight ratio of 7.4 lbs/HP vs. the GTR, with say an honest 500 HP and 3800 lbs having a 7.6 lbs/HP. With a suspension tuned to use the most of PSCs and a 7-speed DCT optimized for the HP characteristics of the CSL's V8, I think it is quite possible the CSL could best the GTR and even go for the production car record.

Although at most tracks agility (lightness, nimbleness) are key to turning fast laps, at the Ring STABILITY is very important. It allows the driver to push that much further at very high speeds on a track that is far from smooth. That is one of the reasons the GTR is so fast there - the AWD provides a great amount of stability and allows it to put down the power coming out of bumpy corners. However, the E92 platform has a long wheelbase and it very stable. I think it is will be confidence inspiring enough for E92 CSL drivers to be able to push the car hard while retaining the advantages of 500 lbs lighter weight than the GTR. Factor in some good aero downforce that will be likely in a car as track-focused as the CSL and I really think it will give the GTR a run for its $$.

Lastly, the CSL will likely be available with M-DCT only. Remembering our little regression analysis puts this hypothetical CSL 5 seconds ahead of the existing CSL.

Just like BMW would not release a new M3 only a touch faster around the Ring than the old M3, neither would they do the same for the CSL, period.

Knowing nothing more my bet is for <7:45 for the E92 M3 CSL

I know the FifthGear comparison test between two Audi TTs (Manual vs S/Tronic) isn't that scientific but when they found a saving of only 0.5s over a lap of the infield circuit at Rockingham it leads me to believe that the improvements aren't that great unlike acceleration where it is more visible.

My opinion was pure based on the 'what if scenario', I too reckon it will improve the time but believe BMW will only release it if the gap is of the margin where it's compatible with the GT3RS, anything less may lead to a renaming to save face.

Just FYI - the GTR is 480 to all 4 wheels So, it's you need to adjust your calculations a little

The GTR is rated at almost 500 HP at the crank. No confirmed dynos of it 4WHP. I'm sure it will be able to be tuned to 480 WHP, but will not make that out of the box.

Trap speed for GTR (according to Edmund's test of an owner's car) was 121 MPH. M3's trap speed (according to Road and Track's recent test): 115 WHP. A CSL with 200 lbs less weight, 40 more HP, shorter gearing and quicker shifts of DCT should match GTR's trap speed. Handling with PSC tires should exceed GTR. The GTR's advantage will come in its high-speed stability and traction offered by it AWD.

I know the FifthGear comparison test between two Audi TTs (Manual vs S/Tronic) isn't that scientific but when they found a saving of only 0.5s over a lap of the infield circuit at Rockingham it leads me to believe that the improvements aren't that great unlike acceleration where it is more visible.

My opinion was pure based on the 'what if scenario', I too reckon it will improve the time but believe BMW will only release it if the gap is of the margin where it's compatible with the GT3RS, anything less may lead to a renaming to save face.

Cool, I have been hunting and hunting for such a track based comparison between DSG and MT. Can you provide a link, quotes, etc.? Did the cars have the same gearing and same weight? Same tires and driver, etc., etc..

But here is what it comes down to. DSG/DCT saves a certain, almost fixed amount of time to get to a given velocity at each and every shift when acclerating. A good estimate for that number is .25-.4 seconds. The time saved to cover a fixed distance then depends on the sum of this time x the vehicle speed at each on power upshift. If the track offers a considerable number of upshifts on power the savings should be visible, it is quite simple.

Cool, I have been hunting and hunting for such a track based comparison between DSG and MT. Can you provide a link, quotes, etc.? Did the cars have the same gearing and same weight? Same tires and driver, etc., etc..

But here is what it comes down to. DSG/DCT saves a certain, almost fixed amount of time to get to a given velocity at each and every shift when acclerating. A good estimate for that number is .25-.4 seconds. The time saved to cover a fixed distance then depends on the sum of this time x the vehicle speed at each on power upshift. If the track offers a considerable number of upshifts on power the savings should be visible, it is quite simple.

Hi swamp,

Here is a link to the website of Fifthgear but it's only a bunch of photos of the video and not the video footage, as you will see they super-imposed the manual TT to the right of the S/Tronic car just to show what the actual difference was in distance between the two. I think one of the cars had 18" alloys and it was the manual one which may or may not make a difference, the 18" rims have slightly wider rubber, oh and the S/Tronic car weighs an extra 25Kgs. Both where by Vicki who happens to be a professional racing driver as well as a presenter and it was conducted on the same day.

Like I said it's not scientific but it does show that though the DSG box make a noticeable difference on the straights, overall the difference on the track isn't huge.